Chalk-hill Lance-wing (Epermenia insecurella)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - moth > Moth |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Epermenia insecurella |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Stainton, 1849) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | (No GB Red List for micro-moths.) Highly localised distribution; recent records from fewer than 10 sites across southern England. Occurs on a single host plant which requires the appropriate grazing intensity. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Generic management of chalk and limestone grasslands may not always be suitable for the host plant Bastard-toadflax. Also requires targeted survey / status review, as not often recorded by national recording schemes. |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Habitat specialist species with restricted range. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Recovery potential limited by fragmented distribution and breeding habitat |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake research into autecology; larval ecology currently incompletely known. Greater understanding of phenology also needed to enable effective survey.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: 1 site in Gloucestershire, 1 site in Wiltshire
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: The species is rarely recorded except for occasional wandering adults at light traps away from breeding habitat. Encourage targeted larval/adult surveys at all known and former sites every 3-5 years, as well as annual surveys at 1-2 key sites. This will enable status information to be kept up to date and also enable land management advice to be provided.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: This action will be facilitated by Action 1, as a greater understanding of larval and adult phenology will make surveys more effective.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure key sites are managed appropriately by providing advice to land managers following survey; also by monitoring the impacts of any changes in management on adult/larval numbers.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.